keys to a convicted felon...still on probation. Video shows bodyguards cursing a guy who had adopted one of mike's abused dogs. End of video, one of the bodyguards says, 'we don't care about no dog, maan.'

There's the new and improved michael vick for you. And on top of that, they gave keys to a felon. Now they're gonna have to change the locks.

NJCardFan

02-08-2011, 11:15 PM

Vick is a scumbag as is his brother. Not to mention that he is the most overrated player in sports right now. He sucks, plain and simple. He is a career 80.2 QB. To put that in perspective, Kyle Orton has a 79.6 rating.

SaintLouieWoman

02-08-2011, 11:30 PM

Vick is a piece of shit. Click on that link and scroll down to the video. It says it all. And while you're doing it, look at the mayor pro temp who gave that key. The mayor said it was unauthorized. The mayor pro temp looks like a thug just like Vick.

Interesting how Vick's bodyguards cursed the guy just wanting to show Vick the picture of Vick's bait dog that he adopted. Vick could care less about those dogs.

It's outrageous that he would get a key to the city. He should be paying the animal sanctuary in Kenab, Utah that took many of his dogs. They're still paying to keep some of the dogs that can't be adopted out. Vick took no responsibility for those dogs or for his actions. As I said, he's a piece of trash in my opinion.

I don't care how he plays football. He's a pathetic excuse for a human.

Can you tell I really don't like Michael Vick? :D

fettpett

02-08-2011, 11:40 PM

I don't think the jerk should be in the NFL period...he can make money to pay for his shit in other ways

Madisonian

02-09-2011, 09:07 AM

Vick is a piece of shit.

This statement is patently unfair to shit, of which I have a higher opinion than I do of that piece of ghetto trash. There is nothing bad that could happen to him that would cause me to have one nanosecond of sympathy for him.

He is human vermin and the reason that word we can't say here still exists, although his picture should be next to it in the dictionary.

This is what he supported...
http://www.jollybengali.net/theconfluence/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/gypsy.jpg

He has admitted to personally killing underperforming dogs by drowning, body slamming and other means.

He served his time. So fucking what? He is still a sick, twisted asshole.
I can forgive and forget a lot of things in life, but not this.

PoliCon

02-09-2011, 10:05 AM

he's a perfect fit for philly.

Kay

02-09-2011, 10:08 AM

Vick needs to be doused in meat juice
then thrown into a pack of hungry wolves.
I don't just wish him death, I wish him to
die slowly being mauled and mangled.

Bailey

02-09-2011, 10:14 AM

he's a perfect fit for philly.

I'd guess if he only raped a women you'd forgive him?
:rolleyes:

fettpett

02-09-2011, 10:15 AM

I'd guess if he only raped a women you'd forgive him?
:rolleyes:

HAHAHA

BUT Ben's CHANGED!!! He's got a fiancée now

Bailey

02-09-2011, 10:21 AM

HAHAHA

BUT Ben's CHANGED!!! He's got a fiancée now

Love how they introduced him by saying he's playing for redemption lol

fettpett

02-09-2011, 10:29 AM

Love how they introduced him by saying he's playing for redemption lol

haha, yeah, so much for his "redemption"

I put Ben and Lewis in the same category, guys that are iffy on getting back into the NFL, but willing to give them a second chance

Vick is WAY below them and guys like this should NEVER be allowed back in the game

but they all did shit that they should have answered for

I don't like vick as a person or a QB but he served his time unlike Lewis or big Ben. (i don't put dogs above humans) so imho murder, rape is worse.

In polis case its ok for to cheer for big Ben since he is on the steelers

Bailey

02-09-2011, 10:37 AM

But then again I'd tell them to shove the key being that its from Dallas and I don't want to soil myself by accepting it.:cool::D

Calypso Jones

02-09-2011, 10:46 AM

don't you think that that level of cruelty says something about the man. God didn't put animals here for man to abuse them. quite the contrary. Vick is cruel. I would bet there is a level of violence in his personal relationships.

Phillygirl

02-09-2011, 10:53 AM

I don't like Vick, but have to admit that I never really followed all that closely the story on the dogs. Seeing that picture posted above has changed my mind a bit. I can understand the passionate contempt for him just a bit more.

fettpett

02-09-2011, 11:09 AM

I don't like vick as a person or a QB but he served his time unlike Lewis or big Ben. (i don't put dogs above humans) so imho murder, rape is worse.

In polis case its ok for to cheer for big Ben since he is on the steelers

I agree, the only reason I put them above Vick is because there wasn't any proof that they did anything and were never charged

Vick was, and Pac Man was around shit and involved in it.

Bailey

02-09-2011, 11:10 AM

don't you think that that level of cruelty says something about the man. God didn't put animals here for man to abuse them. quite the contrary. Vick is cruel. I would bet there is a level of violence in his personal relationships.

Its just good to see if some celebrity commits a crime he goes to jail unlike some other QB's we know. :rolleyes:

PoliCon

02-09-2011, 11:12 AM

I'd guess if he only raped a women you'd forgive him?
:rolleyes:

Vick has been convicted in the court of law. Ben has never been charged let alone convicted - merely accused. Glad to see that you subscribe to the American concept in jurisprudence that a man is innocent until proven guilty as opposed to the leftist concept that a man is guilty until proven innocent. :rolleyes:

Bailey

02-09-2011, 11:35 AM

Vick has been convicted in the court of law. Ben has never been charged let alone convicted - merely accused. Glad to see that you subscribe to the American concept in jurisprudence that a man is innocent until proven guilty as opposed to the leftist concept that a man is guilty until proven innocent. :rolleyes:

If it happend once I'd agree but how many times has he been Accused? at least 2 or 3 times if i'm not mistaken.

I guess in your mind OJ is innocent of murder because he was never found guility in a court of law. :confused::rolleyes:

Rebel Yell

02-09-2011, 11:54 AM

Vick has been convicted in the court of law. Ben has never been charged let alone convicted - merely accused. Glad to see that you subscribe to the American concept in jurisprudence that a man is innocent until proven guilty as opposed to the leftist concept that a man is guilty until proven innocent. :rolleyes:

No reason to fire the man if he's never convicted. But come on, you know he atleast groped some girls that didn't want to be groped.

Let it happen again, and the Rooney's will ship his ass out in a minute. Then you'll pile on. Trust me, I'm an Atlanta fan. Getting rid of Vick was the best that has happened to the Falcons.

Madisonian

02-09-2011, 12:00 PM

Vick has been convicted in the court of law. Ben has never been charged let alone convicted - merely accused. Glad to see that you subscribe to the American concept in jurisprudence that a man is innocent until proven guilty as opposed to the leftist concept that a man is guilty until proven innocent. :rolleyes:
While I may subscribe to that as a matter of law, that does not mean I have to buy into it as a matter of my beliefs or attitudes towards others.

There are thousands who have either never been charged or convicted due to technicalities, deal making or other quasi-legal reasons. That does not mean they are innocent, just that they are not legally guilty.

Big difference.

Rebel Yell

02-09-2011, 12:01 PM

While I may subscribe to that as a matter of law, that does not mean I have to buy into it as a matter of my beliefs or attitudes towards others.

There are thousands who have either never been charged or convicted due to technicalities, deal making or other quasi-legal reasons. That does not mean they are innocent, just that they are not legally guilty.

Big difference.

Depends on which team they play for.;)

PoliCon

02-09-2011, 12:02 PM

If it happend once I'd agree but how many times has he been Accused? at least 2 or 3 times if i'm not mistaken.

I guess in your mind OJ is innocent of murder because he was never found guility in a court of law. :confused::rolleyes:

And despite those three accusations - there has never been enough evidence to bring charges. Look - I freely admit the man has judgment issues - he does as well. The fact remains - accusations are not enough.

OJ was found guilty though - remember? :rolleyes:

PoliCon

02-09-2011, 12:07 PM

No reason to fire the man if he's never convicted. But come on, you know he atleast groped some girls that didn't want to be groped.Do I? I've seen first hand the damage a girl can do to a mans career by making false accusations such as these - and I've seen girls put themselves in harms way and then sober up and accuse the guy of rape or assault. Hell - rape as a concept has been cheapened to the point that the term now includes any instance of sex where the woman decides after the fact that she regrets doing it is now rape. :rolleyes:

Let it happen again, and the Rooney's will ship his ass out in a minute. Then you'll pile on. Trust me, I'm an Atlanta fan. Getting rid of Vick was the best that has happened to the Falcons.

If it happens again - the Rooney's would be well justified in shipping him off. They do not put up with crap which is why we no longer have Jeff Reed or Santonio Holmes - both great players who simply refused to control themselves.

PoliCon

02-09-2011, 12:09 PM

While I may subscribe to that as a matter of law, that does not mean I have to buy into it as a matter of my beliefs or attitudes towards others.

There are thousands who have either never been charged or convicted due to technicalities, deal making or other quasi-legal reasons. That does not mean they are innocent, just that they are not legally guilty.

Big difference. True - but if you're a Christian - then you should be subscribing to the concept that 2 or 3 agreeing witnesses are needed to establish truth. Without the agreeing witnesses - all you have is allegations and gossip.

Madisonian

02-09-2011, 12:11 PM

I don't like vick as a person or a QB but he served his time unlike Lewis or big Ben. (i don't put dogs above humans) so imho murder, rape is worse.

In polis case its ok for to cheer for big Ben since he is on the steelers

To me, it is not a matter of putting dogs or other animals over humans, it is a matter of the powerful forcing their way on those unable to defend themselves.

I have yet to see anybody that could subject another living being to that kind of intentional cruelty and torture not carry that same viciousness into other areas of their so called lives.

So in that regard, I hold Vick to the same contempt I have for murderers, child molesters, rapists, and other sociopathetic personalities.

Madisonian

02-09-2011, 12:13 PM

True - but if you're a Christian - then you should be subscribing to the concept that 2 or 3 agreeing witnesses are needed to establish truth. Without the agreeing witnesses - all you have is allegations and gossip.
So if ones spouse is raped or murdered and there are no witnesses, it didn't happen?
Sorry, wrong part of the Bible for me.

PoliCon

02-09-2011, 12:17 PM

So if ones spouse is raped or murdered and there are no witnesses, it didn't happen?
Sorry, wrong part of the Bible for me.

Right because when someone is actually raped there is no other evidence to give witness to the effect that the rape happened, right? No bruises . . . . no physical trauma? No psychological damage? :rolleyes:

And that's the thing - these women have no evidence and nothing but accusations - accusations that have fallen apart under scrutiny which is why no charges were ever filed.

fettpett

02-09-2011, 12:29 PM

And despite those three accusations - there has never been enough evidence to bring charges. Look - I freely admit the man has judgment issues - he does as well. The fact remains - accusations are not enough.

OJ was found guilty though - remember? :rolleyes:

OJ was found innocent of the murders

OJ was found guilty of being responsible for their deaths in a CIVIL court the burden of proof is far less than that of a criminal court

BIG differences

Rebel Yell

02-09-2011, 12:32 PM

Right because when someone is actually raped there is no other evidence to give witness to the effect that the rape happened, right? No bruises . . . . no physical trauma? No psychological damage? :rolleyes:

And that's the thing - these women have no evidence and nothing but accusations - accusations that have fallen apart under scrutiny which is why no charges were ever filed.

Lots of men treat women like shit without raping them. I don't think Ben raped anyone. I think he's a fondler. He's always struck me as an overgrown frat boy. He just rubs me the wrong way. Pittsburgh could have easily won those Super Bowls without him. He makes the clutch plays when called on, but he's never carried the team. The first Super Bowl he won was won in spite of, not because of Ben. Hell, Randle El threw the big touchdown pass. I think Ben's a good QB, but not a great one.

Rockntractor

02-09-2011, 12:33 PM

Right because when someone is actually raped there is no other evidence to give witness to the effect that the rape happened, right? No bruises . . . . no physical trauma? No psychological damage? :rolleyes:

And that's the thing - these women have no evidence and nothing but accusations - accusations that have fallen apart under scrutiny which is why no charges were ever filed.

They often have semen for DNA evidence.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/Seamen-4Sailors-pic2.jpg

Madisonian

02-09-2011, 12:39 PM

Right because when someone is actually raped there is no other evidence to give witness to the effect that the rape happened, right? No bruises . . . . no physical trauma? No psychological damage? :rolleyes:

And that's the thing - these women have no evidence and nothing but accusations - accusations that have fallen apart under scrutiny which is why no charges were ever filed.
You specifically said "agreeing witnesses", not indications that an event happened. I guess that is my fault for not knowing where you placed the goalposts.

I don't know, and neither do you or anyone else not directly involved, why charges were not filed in this or a plethora of other cases.
Checkbook justice? False Accusations? We will probably never know the whole truth.

This thread was specifically about Sick Dick Mikey Ghetto Trash Vick and there was more than ample evidence of his involvement. Furthermore if there is a perfect place for him, it would be in a Afghanistan cave as he seems to fit in with the Islamo-fascist priorities on life.

If you want to defend Rothlesburger, as you told me when I mentioned Thomas Paine, why not start a separate thread instead on jacking this one?

Bailey

02-09-2011, 12:41 PM

No reason to fire the man if he's never convicted. But come on, you know he atleast groped some girls that didn't want to be groped.

Let it happen again, and the Rooney's will ship his ass out in a minute. Then you'll pile on. Trust me, I'm an Atlanta fan. Getting rid of Vick was the best that has happened to the Falcons.

Ya how'd that work out for you this year? :confused::rolleyes::D

Bailey

02-09-2011, 12:42 PM

And despite those three accusations - there has never been enough evidence to bring charges. Look - I freely admit the man has judgment issues - he does as well. The fact remains - accusations are not enough.

OJ was found guilty though - remember? :rolleyes:

Not on murder he wasn't

fettpett

02-09-2011, 12:44 PM

Ya how'd that work out for you this year? :confused::rolleyes::D

HAHHAH

well he did root for Green Bay in the Super Bowl so I'll give him a pass:D

Bailey

02-09-2011, 12:45 PM

HAHHAH

well he did root for Green Bay in the Super Bowl so I'll give him a pass:D

Hey I rooted for GB myself do I get a pass?:confused::confused:

Rebel Yell

02-09-2011, 12:49 PM

Ya how'd that work out for you this year? :confused::rolleyes::D

Better than the Eagles. Who was their QB again?:confused:

Bailey

02-09-2011, 12:54 PM

Better than the Eagles. Who was their QB again?:confused:

No not really, our Defence cost us this year not vick. We had the worst red zone D in 26 years of any team in the NFL. Our Offence was ranked near number 1 but Defence wins championships.

Rebel Yell

02-09-2011, 01:17 PM

No not really, our Defence cost us this year not vick. We had the worst red zone D in 26 years of any team in the NFL. Our Offence was ranked near number 1 but Defence wins championships.

We still had a better year.

Bailey

02-09-2011, 01:21 PM

We still had a better year.

BTW who's team spanked who's? (yes I know vick was out) :D

So when all is said in done, mine did :D

Bailey

02-09-2011, 01:24 PM

We still had a better year.

And the braves are going to get curb stomped by the Phills (again) this year, not much hope for Atlanta fans :(

Rebel Yell

02-09-2011, 01:29 PM

And the braves are going to get curb stomped by the Phills (again) this year, not much hope for Atlanta fans :(

We still don't have dig our way out of our homes every year. We still win.:D

Bailey

02-09-2011, 01:33 PM

We still don't have dig our way out of our homes every year. We still win.:D

Touche

NJCardFan

02-09-2011, 01:34 PM

No not really, our Defence cost us this year not vick. We had the worst red zone D in 26 years of any team in the NFL. Our Offence was ranked near number 1 but Defence wins championships.

As I said, Vick is overrated. He will never win a championship.

fettpett

02-09-2011, 01:38 PM

Hey I rooted for GB myself do I get a pass?:confused::confused:

IDK...maybe :D LOL

Bailey

02-09-2011, 01:41 PM

IDK...maybe :D LOL

Sorry I was such a jerk, I really was just joking about the fudge thing and was happy GB won (even its rare i root for a team that beats mine) I just cant root for the raptist.

AND poli would be insufferable if the steelers won their 7th ring :)

fettpett

02-09-2011, 01:57 PM

Sorry I was such a jerk, I really was just joking about the fudge thing and was happy GB won (even its rare i root for a team that beats mine) I just cant root for the raptist.

AND poli would be insufferable if the steelers won their 7th ring :)

hahahha, it's cool

Kay

02-09-2011, 02:52 PM

I don't like Vick, but have to admit that I never really followed all that closely the story on the dogs. Seeing that picture posted above has changed my mind a bit. I can understand the passionate contempt for him just a bit more.

PhillyG, that was just the tip of the iceberg, and the damage done in that picture was probably done by another dog during a fight. You should read up on the things that Vick did with his own hands to some of those dogs while they were still alive to torture them. If ever a man needed to be put in the place of his victim and given the eye for an eye treatment it is Vick. :mad:

PoliCon

02-09-2011, 05:13 PM

You specifically said "agreeing witnesses", not indications that an event happened. I guess that is my fault for not knowing where you placed the goalposts. I'm sorry if I confused you - but I'm using the Christian notion of witness - which is not limited to a person. Things can bare witness by way of evidence.

I don't know, and neither do you or anyone else not directly involved, why charges were not filed in this or a plethora of other cases.
Checkbook justice? False Accusations? We will probably never know the whole truth. Sadly true. Thing is though - given how high profile Ben is - given his previous allegations - do you think that any prosecutor would not take the chance to score big points by bringing down a pro football QB?

This thread was specifically about Sick Dick Mikey Ghetto Trash Vick and there was more than ample evidence of his involvement. Furthermore if there is a perfect place for him, it would be in a Afghanistan cave as he seems to fit in with the Islamo-fascist priorities on life. No arguments from me.

If you want to defend Rothlesburger, as you told me when I mentioned Thomas Paine, why not start a separate thread instead on jacking this one? I'm not the one who made Ben part of the discussion.

PoliCon

02-09-2011, 05:14 PM

Not on murder he wasn't

He wasn't? Oh you mean not in the criminal case - because he was found guilty of murder in the civil case.

Bailey

02-09-2011, 05:15 PM

He wasn't? Oh you mean not in the criminal case - because he was found guilty of murder in the civil case.
Civil cases don't call it murder bonehead, you keep rooting "no means yes" guy

PoliCon

02-09-2011, 05:16 PM

As I said, Vick is overrated. He will never win a championship.

His predecessor was also overrated - as was T.O. - as is the whole franchise. :p

And yet that is exactly what he was on trial for in the civil case. Sadly - his criminal case was a media circus and a travesty of justice - just about everyone involved has said as much.

SaintLouieWoman

02-09-2011, 05:25 PM

I don't like Vick, but have to admit that I never really followed all that closely the story on the dogs. Seeing that picture posted above has changed my mind a bit. I can understand the passionate contempt for him just a bit more.

He is so vile that Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, the folks out in Kenab, Utah that took in most of his dogs and expended a large amount of dollars and employee time to rehabilitate those dogs, came out with an article stating that Vick never once offered a dollar to help those dogs that he had abused. He did not inquire about them, he just let a group of rescue people pick up the pieces for him.

Some of the dogs happily passed their Canine Good Citizen test and found homes. Best Friends had to be very careful about those adopted homes, so no one would be hurt by the dogs. Many of the dogs were bait dogs, cruelly used by those slime to train the fighters. There were dogs with ears off, horribly mutilated with the entire jaw destroyed like the one pictured.

Rehabilitation and paying the price means doing amends. It means changing one's ways. That pig (excuse me for using that name in connection with him, Rock) did nothing to help those dogs.

Michael Vick is worse than the ordinary dog abuser, because he had money and the means to live a good life. He chose to be a cruel monster.

fettpett

02-09-2011, 05:53 PM

And yet that is exactly what he was on trial for in the civil case. Sadly - his criminal case was a media circus and a travesty of justice - just about everyone involved has said as much.

he wasn't found guilty of murder or on trail for "murder" in the civil case, the burden of proof is EXTREMELY low for civil cases and he was found liable for their deaths, big difference.

I agree that the murder trial was a joke and should never have been turned into what it was

Calypso Jones

02-09-2011, 06:07 PM

It was turned into a joke by the defense and the hapless judge. The jurors didn't help either. They had a message for WHITE america.

Hawkgirl

02-09-2011, 06:33 PM

Vick needs to be doused in meat juice
then thrown into a pack of hungry wolves.
I don't just wish him death, I wish him to
die slowly being mauled and mangled.

My thoughts exactly. He is a piece of shit that deserves no mercy. He deserves the exact treatment his dogs received. I say we do it Roman Style and sell tickets.

FlaGator

02-09-2011, 06:35 PM

And yet that is exactly what he was on trial for in the civil case. Sadly - his criminal case was a media circus and a travesty of justice - just about everyone involved has said as much.

It was a wrongful death law suit which covers everything from product liability issues, to accidents to manslaughter to murder. A wrongful death law suit doesn't assume a distinction in the motivation of the death, just that a preventable death occurred.

FlaGator

02-09-2011, 06:36 PM

]I'm sorry if I confused you - but I'm using the Christian notion of witness - which is not limited to a person. Things can bare witness by way of evidence. [/B]
Sadly true. Thing is though - given how high profile Ben is - given his previous allegations - do you think that any prosecutor would not take the chance to score big points by bringing down a pro football QB?
No arguments from me.
I'm not the one who made Ben part of the discussion.

Where does this come from? I don't recall this standard being defined in the New Testament.

PoliCon

02-09-2011, 06:41 PM

Where does this come from? I don't recall this standard being defined in the New Testament.

You weren't paying attention to Christ trial then?

Hawkgirl

02-09-2011, 06:42 PM

He is so vile that Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, the folks out in Kenab, Utah that took in most of his dogs and expended a large amount of dollars and employee time to rehabilitate those dogs, came out with an article stating that Vick never once offered a dollar to help those dogs that he had abused. He did not inquire about them, he just let a group of rescue people pick up the pieces for him.

Some of the dogs happily passed their Canine Good Citizen test and found homes. Best Friends had to be very careful about those adopted homes, so no one would be hurt by the dogs. Many of the dogs were bait dogs, cruelly used by those slime to train the fighters. There were dogs with ears off, horribly mutilated with the entire jaw destroyed like the one pictured.

Rehabilitation and paying the price means doing amends. It means changing one's ways. That pig (excuse me for using that name in connection with him, Rock) did nothing to help those dogs.

Michael Vick is worse than the ordinary dog abuser, because he had money and the means to live a good life. He chose to be a cruel monster.

My sentiments exactly. There is nothing I hate more than animal(pets) and child abusers. There is a special place in hell for those.

Yukon

02-09-2011, 07:07 PM

There are drug users and rapists playing pro sports and you are on this guy because he bet on dog fights ? I think your priorities are screwed up.

djones520

02-09-2011, 07:08 PM

There are drug users and rapists playing pro sports and you are on this guy because he bet on dog fights ? I think your priorities are screwed up.

Sure, lets discuss non-related people in a topic that is about Michael Vick. :rolleyes:

Seriously dude, just jumping in for the sake of argument isn't making you look good at all. Why not just cool down for a change.

Rockntractor

02-09-2011, 07:09 PM

There are drug users and rapists playing pro sports and you are on this guy because he bet on dog fights ? I think your priorities are screwed up.

He did far more than bet, do some research. Now you want to add support of animal cruelty to your bag of tricks do you.:rolleyes:

fettpett

02-09-2011, 07:10 PM

There are drug users and rapists playing pro sports and you are on this guy because he bet on dog fights ? I think your priorities are screwed up.

Sure, lets discuss non-related people in a topic that is about Michael Vick. :rolleyes:

Seriously dude, just jumping in for the sake of argument isn't making you look good at all. Why not just cool down for a change.

OR he could actually read through the thread and see that it was already covered...dumbass

Calypso Jones

02-09-2011, 07:13 PM

Think about this. Usually the majority's opinion is the right opinion on matters of ethics and/or morals. Vick is not a better on dogfights. He is a monster with a psyche for going to extremes in brutality, torture and murder. He has no sympathy, empathy, pity or soul. I think it should tell you something that you are in the minority.

Yukon

02-09-2011, 07:14 PM

He did far more than bet, do some research. Now you want to add support of animal cruelty to your bag of tricks do you.:rolleyes:

I think they made more of this issue than was justified simply because the man is a pro sports figure. He paid his debt and should be left alone about it.

Calypso Jones

02-09-2011, 07:18 PM

He is being left alone. he has been welcomed back to his sport and really no one has held him to any standard. no doubt given some time, he'll not be able to help himself and he'll do something that will again reveal what kind of monster he is. Now if people want hold him contemptible on this site, or others, that is their right. and none of your concern since you have no problem with a soulless monster.

FlaGator

02-09-2011, 07:19 PM

You weren't paying attention to Christ trial then?

Apparently you weren't paying too close attention. He spoke what the judges considered blasphemy in the midst of his trial. No witness was necessary after that.

movie buff

02-09-2011, 07:22 PM

There are drug users and rapists playing pro sports and you are on this guy because he bet on dog fights ? I think your priorities are screwed up.

He didn't just bet on dog fights; He personally ran a dog- fighting ring (Aptly named "Bad Newz Kennels"), directly profited off of turning dogs, some of God's creatures viewed by decent people as lovable and loyal companions, into savage killers for entertainment purposes, and had dogs who were physically incapable of fighting killed (And not just euthanized or even shot, mind you; From what I heard, he had them HANGED). Even many of the dogs that he didn't have killed when the ring was running had to be euthanized by the animal control people when the dog fighting ring was shut down, as what they had been through at the hands of Vick and his buddies so thoroughly f&&ked up their bodies and minds that they could not be rehabilitated.
That is an evil act, no matter how you may try to excuse it.

JB

02-09-2011, 07:22 PM

and you are on this guy because he bet on dog fights ? I think your priorities are screwed up.Stupid or sarcasm? I'm not sure but I've read several of your posts today and I'm leaning toward stupid.

The wild-outlandish-posting-to-see-if-I-can-rile-up-the-board does not become you. It's also quite lame.

Yukon

02-09-2011, 07:22 PM

He is being left alone. he has been welcomed back to his sport and really no one has held him to any standard. no doubt given some time, he'll not be able to help himself and he'll do something that will again reveal what kind of monster he is. Now if people want hold him contemptible on this site, or others, that is their right. and none of your concern since you have no problem with a soulless monster.

Study this sentence, learn something and you will be a better person:
"Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone" - Jesus

Madisonian

02-09-2011, 07:23 PM

I think they made more of this issue than was justified simply because the man is a pro sports figure. He paid his debt and should be left alone about it.
Listen you Canadian cocksucker, I know you relish your role as a semen swallowing troll, but don't even begin to stand up for this asshole.
While he may fit in with you hosers and your national pastime of clubbing baby seals, I have spent years, no decades, working with animal rescues cleaning up the messes these overpaid ghetto thugs leave behind in the name of their own sick amusement.

The only thing he should be left alone with is a starving pack of dogs from the inner cities these vermin inhabit.

Rockntractor

02-09-2011, 07:25 PM

Study this sentence, learn something and you will be a better person:
"Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone" - Jesus

I have pretty much had it with you and you haven't been here a full day!

Madisonian

02-09-2011, 07:25 PM

Study this sentence, learn something and you will be a better person:
"Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone" - Jesus

Take your Bible quoting hypocrisy and shove it up your ass.

FlaGator

02-09-2011, 07:27 PM

Listen you Canadian cocksucker, I know you relish your role as a semen swallowing troll, but don't even begin to stand up for this asshole.
While he may fit in with you hosers and your national pastime of clubbing baby seals, I have spent years, no decades, working with animal rescues cleaning up the messes these overpaid ghetto thugs leave behind in the name of their own sick amusement.

The only thing he should be left alone with is a starving pack of dogs from the inner cities these vermin inhabit.

I read last week where some Cannuck killed a bunch of sled dogs (about 100 I think) because business was down after the Olympics. Maybe dog killing is a cultural thing in Canada.

movie buff

02-09-2011, 07:33 PM

I read last week where some Cannuck killed a bunch of sled dogs (about 100 I think) because business was down after the Olympics. Maybe dog killing is a cultural thing in Canada.

Which is especially weird because I thought lefties were all about animal rights and all that.

FlaGator

02-09-2011, 07:36 PM

Which is especially weird because I thought lefties were all about animal rights and all that.

Maybe we should check Vick's birth certificate. Perhaps he's really Canadian in which case he'll probably run for President sometime in the future.

Yukon

02-09-2011, 07:39 PM

I read last week where some Cannuck killed a bunch of sled dogs (about 100 I think) because business was down after the Olympics. Maybe dog killing is a cultural thing in Canada.

Yes he did kill about 100 dogs and an investigation has been launched to determine if he broke any laws. The killing of dogs is legal if done humanely. If he broke any laws the man will be dealt with.

Zathras

02-09-2011, 07:42 PM

Yes he did kill about 100 dogs and an investigation has been launched to determine if he broke any laws. The killing of dogs is legal if done humanely. If he broke any laws the man will be dealt with.

So if we can hire someone to off you in a humane way it's legal? Cool.

Kay

02-09-2011, 10:17 PM

My thoughts exactly. He is a piece of shit that deserves no mercy. He deserves the exact treatment his dogs received. I say we do it Roman Style and sell tickets.....

There is nothing I hate more than animal(pets) and child abusers. There is a special place in hell for those.

I'm with you. Just seeing his name on the screen makes my blood boil.

I read last week where some Cannuck killed a bunch of sled dogs (about 100 I think) because business was down after the Olympics. Maybe dog killing is a cultural thing in Canada.

I saw this story. That's another guy that needs to meet up with a pack of hungry wolves.
Maybe we could do like Hawkgirl said and put Vick and the Canadian guy in a Roman style
coliseum and let them fight to the death. Then throw the loser to the pack of wolves.

Rockntractor

02-09-2011, 10:27 PM

I'm with you. Just seeing his name on the screen makes my blood boil.

I saw this story. That's another guy that needs to meet up with a pack of hungry wolves.
Maybe we could do like Hawkgirl said and put Vick and the Canadian guy in a Roman style
coliseum and let them fight to the death. Then throw the loser to the pack of wolves.

Oklahoma has a history of dog fighting, I don't know what I would do if I stumbled on a dog fight by accident in the backwoods, I hear about them all the time.

Hawkgirl

02-09-2011, 11:36 PM

Pits are some of the most loyal companions. They aim to please their owner. My exboyfriend had a pitbull, and your only encounter with death would be if he tried to lick you to death. Pits are great animals and good family dogs...it's a sad shame that they are being used as fighting dogs.
It makes me wonder who the real animals are. Vick is certainly a savage monster who suprisingly, walks upright. I hope his death is a painfully long one. Dallas should be ashamed.

Oh and YUKON, drop dead you stupid, ignorant, bitch.

PoliCon

02-09-2011, 11:49 PM

Apparently you weren't paying too close attention. He spoke what the judges considered blasphemy in the midst of his trial. No witness was necessary after that.

right because at that point - there was a whole room full of witnesses. Gods law requires two or more agreeing witnesses for the establishment of truth.

PoliCon

02-09-2011, 11:52 PM

Study this sentence, learn something and you will be a better person:
"Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone" - Jesus

Sorry? who here has condemned Vick to death?

NJCardFan

02-10-2011, 01:02 AM

Study this sentence, learn something and you will be a better person:
"Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone" - Jesus

Hey shitdick. The man tortured and killed dogs for the fun of it. I never did such a thing hence I have all the right in the world to condemn him. He's a piece of shit. His whole family is shit. The man had a God given talent and he decided it was better to be a thug. In typical thug fashion, he's a hero in his circle. And he has yet to express remorse.

NJCardFan

02-10-2011, 01:13 AM

Which is especially weird because I thought lefties were all about animal rights and all that.
Race rights come first. Some don't feel Vick deserved jail time. Oh, and this is who shitdick is standing up for:

He further admitted that he knew his colleagues killed several dogs who did not perform well. He admitted to being involved in the destruction of 6–8 dogs, by hanging or drowning.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Vick#Dog_fighting_investigations

Do you consider killing by hanging and drowning humane, shitdick? Yukon, I don't wish harm on my worst enemies but you are coming dangerously close to me changing my policy. You are a waste of human skin. You're a sad lonely little man who gets pleasure just by coming here and stirring the shit pot. You are the lowest form of life ever imagined. I really, really hope you don't have offspring.

AmPat

02-10-2011, 01:50 AM

Michael Vick given keys to the city of DallasAs long as the keys don't work at the kennel.:eek:

lacarnut

02-10-2011, 03:14 AM

I enjoyed the Packer Philly NFC playoff football game. I was hoping every-time Vick got the ball, he would get his ass smeared. The Pack did a number on him.

Vick is a POS and he will screw up again. Scum bags like him have a habit of getting in trouble.

FlaGator

02-10-2011, 08:57 AM

right because at that point - there was a whole room full of witnesses. Gods law requires two or more agreeing witnesses for the establishment of truth.

On this we agree.

However, you stated

I'm sorry if I confused you - but I'm using the Christian notion of witness - which is not limited to a person. Things can bare witness by way of evidence.

And described it as Christian Notion of a witness. I am asking you to show me where this is strictly a Christian Notion and not a standard of evidence in most all cultural legal proceedings. The Judeo/Christian idea is that two human witnesses are required in a court law to establish the truth of a claim. forensic evidence (non human witnesses) where used only after two or more human witnesses could be found.

I asked you to identify for me a biblical case where this is not true. You held up the trial of Christ because the original two witnesses were shown to be false witness and their stories were discredited. Christ created a new set of human witnesses when he made his statements to Caiaphas and was found guilty. Ther was not witness by way of evidence used in the trial of Christ.

movie buff

02-10-2011, 08:57 AM

Race rights come first. Some don't feel Vick deserved jail time. Oh, and this is who shitdick is standing up for:

Do you consider killing by hanging and drowning humane, shitdick? Yukon, I don't wish harm on my worst enemies but you are coming dangerously close to me changing my policy. You are a waste of human skin. You're a sad lonely little man who gets pleasure just by coming here and stirring the shit pot. You are the lowest form of life ever imagined. I really, really hope you don't have offspring.

As I expressed a little in my earlier comment on this thread (Not the one you replied to), I always considered that one of the most barbaric and inhuman aspects of what Vick did. I mean, if they decided that some of the dogs needed to be killed, you'd think they'd do it by euthanizing them, or even shooting them. Why in God's name would he feel the need to do so by such sadistic ways as drowning them and ESPECIALLY hanging them? Did he think he was making an example of them for the other dogs, or what?
Vick doesn't belong back on the football field, and he doesn't belong in prison, either (Prisons are for human beings); He belongs in a zoo.

AmPat

02-10-2011, 09:15 AM

Yes he did kill about 100 dogs and an investigation has been launched to determine if he broke any laws. The killing of dogs is legal if done humanely. If he broke any laws the man will be dealt with.

Does this mean he'll get a contract in the Canadian football league?:eek:

PoliCon

02-10-2011, 10:04 AM

On this we agree.

However, you stated

And described it as Christian Notion of a witness. I am asking you to show me where this is strictly a Christian Notion and not a standard of evidence in most all cultural legal proceedings. The Judeo/Christian idea is that two human witnesses are required in a court law to establish the truth of a claim. forensic evidence (non human witnesses) where used only after two or more human witnesses could be found.

I asked you to identify for me a biblical case where this is not true. You held up the trial of Christ because the original two witnesses were shown to be false witness and their stories were discredited. Christ created a new set of human witnesses when he made his statements to Caiaphas and was found guilty. Ther was not witness by way of evidence used in the trial of Christ.

1 - I never said it was a strictly Christian notion.

2 - you said nothing about a difference between a human and non-human witnesses when you questioned me previously. Once again we fail to communicate because you asked me for something which you did not actually ask for . . . .

Where does this come from? I don't recall this standard being defined in the New Testament.Where in this question am I supposed to find your current issue with my statement??

I'll give you both new and old testament examples of testimony being made by things - Gen 4:10; Jer 12:8; John 5:39; Hos 5:5; Jer 14:7; Isa 59:12

Odysseus

02-10-2011, 10:34 AM

There are drug users and rapists playing pro sports and you are on this guy because he bet on dog fights ? I think your priorities are screwed up.
He didn't just bet on dog fights. He ran the fights, owned the dogs, and personally killed them in cruel and vicious ways. He's a sick, sadistic piece of human sewage.

That having been said, you're right about the druggies and rapists (and that may be the first time that you've been right about anything). Professional sports has always had scandals, but there was a time when the kind of behavior that we're discussing ended careers. I know that the athletes of the "good old days" weren't choirboys, but they kept a lid on their worst impulses, and the team owners and leagues enforced some standards of conduct. Unfortunately, our entertainment is a reflection of the culture at large, and the behavior that we are deploring in athletes is also common among the rest of the population, but especially among celebrities.

fettpett

02-10-2011, 11:46 AM

Pits are some of the most loyal companions. They aim to please their owner. My exboyfriend had a pitbull, and your only encounter with death would be if he tried to lick you to death. Pits are great animals and good family dogs...it's a sad shame that they are being used as fighting dogs.
It makes me wonder who the real animals are. Vick is certainly a savage monster who suprisingly, walks upright. I hope his death is a painfully long one. Dallas should be ashamed.

Oh and YUKON, drop dead you stupid, ignorant, bitch.

Pits are some of the BEST family dogs, they sadly have the worst rep because of POS like Vick and other assholes that have ruined their rep, pisses me off cuz I would LOVE to have one and can't because of our park rules:(

Rebel Yell

02-10-2011, 11:47 AM

Pits are some of the BEST family dogs, they sadly have the worst rep because of POS like Vick and other assholes that have ruined their rep, pisses me off cuz I would LOVE to have one and can't because of our park rules:(

Pits are very loyal and people pleasing dogs. Unfortunately, their desire to please their owners costs many of them any chance of a good life.

Hawkgirl

02-10-2011, 05:51 PM

If you raise a pit from puppy age in a loving home.....

http://i56.tinypic.com/15ofotv.jpg

Sad fact is that county shelters are full of pits....Since I have a toddler, I wouldn't get one just yet...but my goal is to rescue one from a shelter, maybe a young adult, when my daughter is a bit older.

Yukon

02-10-2011, 06:15 PM

Does this mean he'll get a contract in the Canadian football league?:eek:

Four-down footballers dont play well in the three-down, larger field CFL ?

fettpett

02-10-2011, 06:16 PM

Four-down footballers dont play well in the three-down, larger field CFL ?

the bastardized version of the game? please, he's a QB not a RB

Yukon

02-10-2011, 06:17 PM

the bastardized version of the game? please, he's a QB not a RB

It doesnt matter, Joe Theisman faikled in the CFL but was successful in the NFL which we call "pansy ball".

Odysseus

02-10-2011, 06:21 PM

If you raise a pit from puppy age in a loving home.....

http://i56.tinypic.com/15ofotv.jpg

Sad fact is that county shelters are full of pits....Since I have a toddler, I wouldn't get one just yet...but my goal is to rescue one from a shelter, maybe a young adult, when my daughter is a bit older.

I wanted to get a half-pit/half-shih-tzu, but my wife refused to have a bull-shihtzu.

AmPat

02-10-2011, 06:22 PM

It doesnt matter, Joe Theisman faikled in the CFL but was successful in the NFL which we call "pansy ball".

Well we call the CFL the minors. It is the sports equivalent of Branson, Missouri. A place for has beens.

AmPat

02-10-2011, 06:24 PM

If you raise a pit from puppy age in a loving home.....

http://i56.tinypic.com/15ofotv.jpg

Sad fact is that county shelters are full of pits....Since I have a toddler, I wouldn't get one just yet...but my goal is to rescue one from a shelter, maybe a young adult, when my daughter is a bit older.

I stopped in my neighborhood to check on a stray that looked just like this. He was the friendliest dog I have seen lately.

Yukon

02-10-2011, 06:30 PM

Armpit,
Pansy-ball is pansy ball. The NFL is pansy-ball. Sorry but thats how it is BRO !

fettpett

02-10-2011, 06:34 PM

It doesnt matter, Joe Theisman faikled in the CFL but was successful in the NFL which we call "pansy ball".

pansy ball? HA, w/e dude....the Bungles or Lions could kick the ass of any CFL team

and your obviously and idiot, cuz Theisman did pretty damn good in the CFL

Zafod

02-10-2011, 06:43 PM

I dig dong meat!!!!

lmao

AmPat

02-10-2011, 06:48 PM

Armpit,
Pansy-ball is pansy ball. The NFL is pansy-ball. Sorry but thats how it is BRO !

As evidenced by the massive exodus of top-tier talent from the US schools to play the pick up playground version of real football in Canada.:rolleyes:
Those draft picks are reknown for their refusal of those large contracts for a chance to play CFL. A little advice YUKEY ONE, stop sniffing glue.

Odysseus

02-10-2011, 07:32 PM

As evidenced by the massive exodus of top-tier talent from the US schools to play the pick up playground version of real football in Canada.:rolleyes:
Those draft picks are reknown for their refusal of those large contracts for a chance to play CFL. A little advice YUKEY ONE, stop sniffing glue.

Hey, be kind. Canada has lots of great sports. Why, I remember when the NHL had their lockout, and hundreds of dollars were lost by the league. And there's nothing to beat a good curling match, or as it is known down here, "Ice Shuffleboard." Truly riveting stuff, I tell you!

fettpett

02-10-2011, 08:04 PM

Hey, be kind. Canada has lots of great sports. Why, I remember when the NHL had their lockout, and hundreds of dollars were lost by the league. And there's nothing to beat a good curling match, or as it is known down here, "Ice Shuffleboard." Truly riveting stuff, I tell you!

don't forget the ever popular "moose tipping"

Hawkgirl

02-10-2011, 08:04 PM

Didn't the Jamaicaan's beat the Canucks in the Olympic Bobsled competition?...that's not saying much for our northerly neighbor when it comes to their Sports department.

Madisonian

02-10-2011, 08:10 PM

don't forget the ever popular "moose tipping"
Which would explain the work Yukon did in his missionary position... er, position as a missionary.

CueSi

02-10-2011, 08:11 PM

Hey, be kind. Canada has lots of great sports. Why, I remember when the NHL had their lockout, and hundreds of dollars were lost by the league. And there's nothing to beat a good curling match, or as it is known down here, "Ice Shuffleboard." Truly riveting stuff, I tell you!

Curling. . .oh my GOD...you know the DJ at the club hates you when that's what he puts on TV. Yet, it's strangely facinating with enough alcohol.

Especially if someone else buys it. :D

~QC

fettpett

02-10-2011, 08:14 PM

Which would explain the work Yukon did in his missionary position... er, position as a missionary.

missionary? I feel for those people...

I'm sure he played catcher for those moose

Madisonian

02-10-2011, 08:31 PM

missionary? I feel for those people...

I'm sure he played catcher for those moose
I think Yukon would find that hard to swallow, not that he probably has not tried.

Lager

02-10-2011, 08:36 PM

There are drug users and rapists playing pro sports and you are on this guy because he bet on dog fights ? I think your priorities are screwed up.

And I think it's obvious you are just a troll. You jump in to take a side without really knowing or caring about all the facts. You take an opposing position without showing a particular personal opinion or stance on the position that you care to defend, simply content being a contrarian.

And since it's apparent you are a troll, two other conclusions can be inferred:
Your maturity level can't possibly be anywhere near 60 years old, unless you are mentally challenged, in which case you have my sympathy. And you probably aren't Canadian, since the troll population isn't as large up there. ;)

Zathras

02-10-2011, 08:41 PM

pansy ball? HA, w/e dude....the Bungles or Lions could kick the ass of any CFL team

You can add the Niners and the Raiders to that mix too. Hell, I'll bet even the Arena teams could beat the CFL teams.

NJCardFan

02-10-2011, 09:12 PM

You can add the Niners and the Raiders to that mix too. Hell, I'll bet even the Arena teams could beat the CFL teams.

Even playing 8 on 11. And the CFL brand of football is so tough, offensive players can move forward before the snap, the endzone is 25 yards deep, the goalposts are on the goal line(a la pre-1975 NFL), and touchbacks are worth 1 point. WTF is up with that? Oh, and for his little comment about drug users playing in the NFL, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it the CFL that took in Ricky Williams during his suspension year from the NFL?

fettpett

02-10-2011, 09:45 PM

Even playing 8 on 11. And the CFL brand of football is so tough, offensive players can move forward before the snap, the endzone is 25 yards deep, the goalposts are on the goal line(a la pre-1975 NFL), and touchbacks are worth 1 point. WTF is up with that? Oh, and for his little comment about drug users playing in the NFL, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it the CFL that took in Ricky Williams during his suspension year from the NFL?

yes they did, and they jumped on getting him to play. the CFL regularly goes after retread NFL players.

Hell I think the UFL teams could beat the CFL teams

FlaGator

02-10-2011, 10:09 PM

1 - I never said it was a strictly Christian notion.

2 - you said nothing about a difference between a human and non-human witnesses when you questioned me previously. Once again we fail to communicate because you asked me for something which you did not actually ask for . . . .
Where in this question am I supposed to find your current issue with my statement??

I'll give you both new and old testament examples of testimony being made by things - Gen 4:10; Jer 12:8; John 5:39; Hos 5:5; Jer 14:7; Isa 59:12

Here is what has transpired that may be causing my confusion. You stated in a defense of Ben that there were no witnesses to the crime so he is innocent until proven guilty. Baily then suggested that you must find believe that OJ is not guilty because he was found not guilty. Madisonian pointed out that a lot of people who have committed crimes are never brought to trial because of technicalities and what have you. You then pointed out OJ was guilty. Right where we are all ok and I understand the points that you and the others are making.

Now here is where things get dicey. You point out that OJ was convicted. Then you mention to Madisonian the following

True - but if you're a Christian - then you should be subscribing to the concept that 2 or 3 agreeing witnesses are needed to establish truth. Without the agreeing witnesses - all you have is allegations and gossip.That made me think that there were no witnesses to the OJ murder. By the statement above OJ would never have been brought to trial because of not having a eye witness. Madisonian pointed out

So if ones spouse is raped or murdered and there are no witnesses, it didn't happen?
Sorry, wrong part of the Bible for me.Your response was to state that there was no corroborating evidence in Ben's case. Madisonian states that you have moved the evidentiary goal posts by first stating the need for 2 or more human witnesses and then implying that human witnesses are not needed when there is forensic evidence. This last bit seems to negate you statement that as a Christian 2 or more witnesses are needed.

I think that you saw this dilemma and stated in another message that it is a Christian notion that forensic evidence can fill the role of a human witness or witness. This is when I ask for scriptural verification that forensic evidence and substitute for human witnesses. You point out the trial of Christ to answer my question but in fact it does not provide any answers since there was no forensic evidence used to convict Jesus of blasphemy. He created eye witnesses by appearing to to speak blasphemies.

So in order to clear things up. Where does scripture state or imply that forensic evidence can replace human eye witness testimony? You said that this is a Christian notion but I can't find that notion reflected in scripture. The scripture you have supplied is not sufficient.

Gen 4:10 And the LORD said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. Are you saying that God who is omniscient was unaware of Abel's murder before his "blood cried out from the ground"? God was the witness and to get technical since he is a Triune God then He was three witnesses.

Jer 12:8 My heritage has become to me like a lion in the forest; she has lifted up her voice against me; therefore I hate her. I'm not even sure what this has to do with legal proceedings and witnesses

John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, Again this has nothing to do with the legal concept of witnessing or bearing witness in a legal since at a trial. It is the same thing as when I witness to another about my conversion to Christianity. You are seriously misusing that scripture.

Hos 5:5 The pride of Israel testifies to his face; Israel and Ephraim shall stumble in his guilt; Judah also shall stumble with them.Now your really stretching here. A statement from God using metaphor to describe the sins and failures of the Hebrews to the Hebrew Priests is prove of the the Christian acceptability of forensic evidence? What did you do, a quick word search on witness, testify and justice? This has nothing to do with the legal proceedings and the quality of evidence described in scripture.

Jer 14:7 "Though our iniquities testify against us, act, O LORD, for your name's sake; for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against you. Once again the use of metaphor, this time by the people of Judah describing to God what He already knew and totally off the mark. What does this has nothing to do with legal proceedings and the rules of evidence.

Isa 59:12 For our transgressions are multiplied before you, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and we know our iniquities: Not related to the rules of evidence in a court proceeding. More metaphor and unrelated to the topic at hand.

I'm am not saying that these aren't important and beneficial quotes, but they have nothing to do with with my question. Find me an example of a trial where something other than an eye witness was used to assess guilt.

Do I agree that physical evidence can fill in when witnesses are not available. Certainly. In no way am saying that if there is no witnesses either direct forensic or circumstantial evidence can not be used. I am just taking issue with the statement that biblically, a human court, the Bible stated or implied that something other than eye witness anything more than supplemental.

PoliCon

02-10-2011, 11:28 PM

Quote:
Gen 4:10 And the LORD said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground.
Are you saying that God who is omniscient was unaware of Abel's murder before his "blood cried out from the ground"? God was the witness and to get technical since he is a Triune God then He was three witnesses.
right. God was unaware. That is exactly what I'm saying. see here's the direct quote of me saying just that:

oh wait. I didn't say that after all did I?:rolleyes:

Quote:
Jer 12:8 My heritage has become to me like a lion in the forest; she has lifted up her voice against me; therefore I hate her.
I'm not even sure what this has to do with legal proceedings and witnesses
Quote:
John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,
Again this has nothing to do with the legal concept of witnessing or bearing witness in a legal since at a trial. It is the same thing as when I witness to another about my conversion to Christianity. You are seriously misusing that scripture.I'm sorry - did I specify that these quotes would deal directly with legal proceedings? Or did I actually say that I would give passages which refer to non-human witnesses and testimonies . . . . I'm pretty sure the latter.

Quote:
Hos 5:5 The pride of Israel testifies to his face; Israel and Ephraim shall stumble in his guilt; Judah also shall stumble with them.
Now your really stretching here. A statement from God using metaphor to describe the sins and failures of the Hebrews to the Hebrew Priests is prove of the the Christian acceptability of forensic evidence? What did you do, a quick word search on witness, testify and justice? This has nothing to do with the legal proceedings and the quality of evidence described in scripture. I honestly wonder why I bother to respond you to half the time. You insist on taking things literally when it suits you and on twisting things into statements that have nothing to do with what was actually said. Once again - You asked for examples of non-human witnesses and testimonies - I have given them. If non- human witnesses are good enough testimony before God - these witnesses are good enough to apply in court. Do you seriously believe that God was speaking metaphorically here? I do not.

Quote:
Jer 14:7 "Though our iniquities testify against us, act, O LORD, for your name's sake; for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against you.
Once again the use of metaphor, this time by the people of Judah describing to God what He already knew and totally off the mark. What does this has nothing to do with legal proceedings and the rules of evidence.Once again - metaphore is your opinion and one I disagree with. If blood can cry out - and it does according to scripture then our actions can also give testimony against us.

Quote:
Isa 59:12 For our transgressions are multiplied before you, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and we know our iniquities:
Not related to the rules of evidence in a court proceeding. More metaphor and unrelated to the topic at hand. Your opinion again. Luckily you are not the end all and be all expert on the scriptures.

I'm am not saying that these aren't important and beneficial quotes, but they have nothing to do with with my question. Find me an example of a trial where something other than an eye witness was used to assess guilt.they categorically answer your question. They may not answer the question the way you want the question answered - but none the less - they are examples of non-human witnesses.

HAHHHAHAHAHAHAH, hell the AAFL that the Browns came from could...probably any team from the 1890 on could

Madisonian

02-11-2011, 01:53 PM

And lumberjack competitions!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mCFwdUImU0
Yes, you know someone had to post this.:D

NJCardFan

02-11-2011, 02:40 PM

HAHHHAHAHAHAHAH, hell the AAFL that the Browns came from could...probably any team from the 1890 on could

Between 1950 and 1961, the NFL played 6 games against the CFL using CFL rules and won all 6 games(there was a 7th meeting between an American team and a CFL team but it was the then AFL's Buffalo Bills against the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. Buffalo lost). Those games went as such:

So, the only game they could win was against a team playing in only it's 2nd season of existence. And don't knock the old AAFL Browns. The AAFL merged with the NFL for the 1950 season and the Browns promptly won the NFL championship.

FlaGator

02-11-2011, 02:41 PM

I honestly wonder why I bother to respond you to half the time. You insist on taking things literally when it suits you and on twisting things into statements that have nothing to do with what was actually said. Once again - You asked for examples of non-human witnesses and testimonies - I have given them. If non- human witnesses are good enough testimony before God - these witnesses are good enough to apply in court. Do you seriously believe that God was speaking metaphorically here? I do not.
Once again - metaphore is your opinion and one I disagree with. If blood can cry out - and it does according to scripture then our actions can also give testimony against us.
Your opinion again. Luckily you are not the end all and be all expert on the scriptures. they categorically answer your question. They may not answer the question the way you want the question answered - but none the less - they are examples of non-human witnesses.

You sure like to jump through hoops to avoid facing the fact that you backed yourself in to a corner with the whole 2 witness thing. Wouldn't it have been easier to admit that you misspoke than to make stuff up wholesale? You don't have to answer that, I already know what you'll probably say. I think am going to repost the last couple of responses on a theology board I frequent. They will enjoy it as much as I do.

Have a nice day

AmPat

02-11-2011, 10:07 PM

Armpit,
Pansy-ball is pansy ball. The NFL is pansy-ball. Sorry but thats how it is BRO !

Whatchu mean "Bro" willis?

PoliCon

02-12-2011, 02:19 AM

You sure like to jump through hoops to avoid facing the fact that you backed yourself in to a corner with the whole 2 witness thing. Wouldn't it have been easier to admit that you misspoke than to make stuff up wholesale? You don't have to answer that, I already know what you'll probably say. I think am going to repost the last couple of responses on a theology board I frequent. They will enjoy it as much as I do.

Have a nice day

That's half your problem. You're so completely doctrinaire about everything that you cannot possible reach beyond what you have already decided each word and passage means. :rolleyes:

fettpett

02-12-2011, 09:51 AM

That's half your problem. You're so completely doctrinaire about everything that you cannot possible reach beyond what you have already decided each word and passage means. :rolleyes:

That's half your problem. You're so completely doctrinaire about everything that you cannot possible reach beyond what you have already decided each word and passage means. :rolleyes:

You just keep making up your own theology. If it floats your boat then fine, just don't expect others to buy in to what is obviously your on brand of Christianity.

fettpett

02-12-2011, 03:22 PM

we really need a religious sub thread.....

FlaGator

02-12-2011, 03:25 PM

Except I am not doctrinaire. I resolutely do not believe in being so.

So your views on the Eucharist are not doctrinaire? Please...

The stuff you posted on this thread are doctrinaire... it's just your own personal doctrine that I don't think existed until you had to explain the whole two witnesses thing.

Besides being doctrinaire, you have shown that you are incapable of admitting to a mistake and are willing to go to any lengths to convince others that it was not a mistake but that others misunderstood you because they aren't privy to the same 'Christian Notions' that you are.

SaintLouieWoman

02-12-2011, 03:59 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mCFwdUImU0
Yes, you know someone had to post this.:D

Thanks for posting my fav skit. They said that this was George Harrison's favorite Monty Python bit.

Hey, if they're going to digress from the Michael Vick given the keys to Dallas by going off on their two witness ramp, this is a nice diversion. :D

Madisonian

02-12-2011, 04:09 PM

Thanks for posting my fav skit. They said that this was George Harrison's favorite Monty Python bit.

Hey, if they're going to digress from the Michael Vick given the keys to Dallas by going off on their two witness ramp, this is a nice diversion. :D

I know.
This all started because I was not sure how Poli was defining "witnesses".

I did not expect it to turn into....

Wait for it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY&feature=related

SaintLouieWoman

02-12-2011, 04:30 PM

I know.
This all started because I was not sure how Poli was defining "witnesses".

I did not expect it to turn into....

Wait for it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY&feature=related

:D I have a relative who is a religious zealot. I often tell her that she was born in the wrong century---that she would have been a smashing success during the Inquisition. This is usually after she asks me dozens of nosy, pointed questions.

:D I have a relative who is a religious zealot. I often tell her that she was born in the wrong century---that she would have been a smashing success during the Inquisition. This is usually after she asks me dozens of nosy, pointed questions.

Not necessarily in my top ten list, but fits some of the discussions here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

but since you mentioned it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyyNNPNv1a4

FlaGator

02-13-2011, 07:48 PM

I know.
This all started because I was not sure how Poli was defining "witnesses".

I did not expect it to turn into....

Wait for it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY&feature=related

That's because no one expects the Spanish Inquisition

PoliCon

02-14-2011, 12:44 AM

So your views on the Eucharist are not doctrinaire? Please...How is saying "I don't care how you understand that Christ is real in the Eucharist" - how is that being doctrinaire? Hell I don't even care what you call it either! :eek:

The stuff you posted on this thread are doctrinaire... it's just your own personal doctrine that I don't think existed until you had to explain the whole two witnesses thing. What ever dude. You asked for evidence of non-human testimony and witnesses and I gave it. That's it. full stop.

Besides being doctrinaire, you have shown that you are incapable of admitting to a mistake and are willing to go to any lengths to convince others that it was not a mistake but that others misunderstood you because they aren't privy to the same 'Christian Notions' that you are. I'm glad you know me and my heart so well that you can speak authoritatively on my motivations heart and my intent in what I post. Should I start calling you Jesus Christ?

PoliCon

02-14-2011, 12:45 AM

You just keep making up your own theology. If it floats your boat then fine, just don't expect others to buy in to what is obviously your on brand of Christianity.

I have never once tried to convert you or anyone else to my "brand of Christianity."

PoliCon

02-14-2011, 12:46 AM

we really need a religious sub thread.....

I think a religious forum would just end up constantly messy.

PoliCon

02-14-2011, 12:49 AM

:D I have a relative who is a religious zealot. I often tell her that she was born in the wrong century---that she would have been a smashing success during the Inquisition. This is usually after she asks me dozens of nosy, pointed questions. I hope she hasn't soured you on God . . . .

I have never once tried to convert you or anyone else to my "brand of Christianity."

I never said you did. My only issue with this has been you claimed a personal view (and we all have them) as a 'Christian Notion' which I believed was intended to give your interpretation more authority that it warranted. I recognize that you have views and opinions that you have discerned from your reading of scripture. I would be a lair if I said that I didn't have mine. As for being a devotee of doctrine, all Christians have a doctrine that they uphold. Just because something is from personal discernment doesn't negate the fact that it is doctrine.

To be honest here, I admire your understanding and knowledge of scripture and I guess I tend to hold you to a higher standard than others. If this is wrong then please except my apologies. Whenever you believe that I am passing off a personal belief as accepted Christian doctrine, please call me on it. I may get upset at first but in the end I always appreciate correction. I know my views on passivity are not standard doctrine but I when I state them I do try to emphasize that they are what I read from scripture.

At any rate, your view is interesting... I just don't agree with it and I don't feel it applies to the debate at hand. But hey... this is how we learn. If I have come across as a bit zealous please understand that I am concerned with scripture and how it is interpreted (or in some cases misinterpreted). This is the problem with the major denominations now. They have revised God's word in order to put more butts in the pews and redefined some sins as normal behaviors. This bothers me greatly as I am certain it probably bothers you.

In the end I hope you won't shy away from these discussions in the future. Even though we both tend to get caught up in the defense of our beliefs I know that I learn from you and I hope that you glean some useful information from me.

fettpett

02-14-2011, 11:01 AM

I think a religious forum would just end up constantly messy.

I'm sure it would, but we keep derailing threads with religious/doctrine stuff

PoliCon

02-14-2011, 09:36 PM

I never said you did. My only issue with this has been you claimed a personal view (and we all have them) as a 'Christian Notion' which I believed was intended to give your interpretation more authority that it warranted. You went well beyond the point i was making and made issue out of where you went beyond the point being made. Reality is that people here are convicting a guy who has not be brought to trial - who has not been charged - and against whom there is not the evidence required by any standard for him to be condemned as he is being condemned.

I recognize that you have views and opinions that you have discerned from your reading of scripture. I would be a lair if I said that I didn't have mine. As for being a devotee of doctrine, all Christians have a doctrine that they uphold. Just because something is from personal discernment doesn't negate the fact that it is doctrine.having a personal doctrine is different from being doctrinaire and insisting that there is only one right way to read things.

To be honest here, I admire your understanding and knowledge of scripture and I guess I tend to hold you to a higher standard than others. If this is wrong then please except my apologies. Whenever you believe that I am passing off a personal belief as accepted Christian doctrine, please call me on it. I may get upset at first but in the end I always appreciate correction. I know my views on passivity are not standard doctrine but I when I state them I do try to emphasize that they are what I read from scripture. Dude - I'm not interested one way or the other in changing your mind on how you interpret scriptures. I'm quite fine with you having a different POV than I do. In point of fact - I prefer things that way. Please don't take my defending my understanding as an insistence that all people conform to my POV.

At any rate, your view is interesting... I just don't agree with it and I don't feel it applies to the debate at hand. But hey... this is how we learn. If I have come across as a bit zealous please understand that I am concerned with scripture and how it is interpreted (or in some cases misinterpreted). This is the problem with the major denominations now. They have revised God's word in order to put more butts in the pews and redefined some sins as normal behaviors. This bothers me greatly as I am certain it probably bothers you. And here we diverge. I don't care how the denominations view or interpret scriptures. We have to approach God in the way that works best for us individually. So as long as there is not a clear denial of what scripture says - or a blatant twisting of passages - I'm cool with people reading things differently if it gets them to God.

In the end I hope you won't shy away from these discussions in the future. Even though we both tend to get caught up in the defense of our beliefs I know that I learn from you and I hope that you glean some useful information from me. I understand your passion - I once sat in similar seat. I used to spend a great deal of time on Christian forums even to the point of being a member of staff there once upon a time. Before that I participated in several other Christian forums and chat rooms practicing Apologetics and arguing doctrine. I have over a decades experience arguing with ministers, priests, theologians, seminary students, etc - all of them shocked when they learned my age . . . . it was fun but I find it more profitable to live it than to argue it now a days . . . .

FlaGator

02-14-2011, 10:26 PM

You went well beyond the point i was making and made issue out of where you went beyond the point being made. Reality is that people here are convicting a guy who has not be brought to trial - who has not been charged - and against whom there is not the evidence required by any standard for him to be condemned as he is being condemned.

having a personal doctrine is different from being doctrinaire and insisting that there is only one right way to read things.
Dude - I'm not interested one way or the other in changing your mind on how you interpret scriptures. I'm quite fine with you having a different POV than I do. In point of fact - I prefer things that way. Please don't take my defending my understanding as an insistence that all people conform to my POV.
And here we diverge. I don't care how the denominations view or interpret scriptures. We have to approach God in the way that works best for us individually. So as long as there is not a clear denial of what scripture says - or a blatant twisting of passages - I'm cool with people reading things differently if it gets them to God.
I understand your passion - I once sat in similar seat. I used to spend a great deal of time on Christian forums even to the point of being a member of staff there once upon a time. Before that I participated in several other Christian forums and chat rooms practicing Apologetics and arguing doctrine. I have over a decades experience arguing with ministers, priests, theologians, seminary students, etc - all of them shocked when they learned my age . . . . it was fun but I find it more profitable to live it than to argue it now a days . . . .

Again, things would not have go so far if you had not decided to claim your own personal belief as a 'Christian Notion'. This personal understanding you speak of, is that your own personal gospel? Question, does God want you to adapt scripture to fit your life or do you think he want's you to adapt your life to scripture? That whole personal interpretation thing sound a lot like the liberal teaching that is coming from many churches now. You realize that your view could be wrong don't you. Many homosexuals have reinterpreted scripture to fit there life style. Are you guilty of the same thing?

One another note, did it occur to you to accept my olive branch with a simple "it's cool' or something similar? I suspect that you were to focused on answering things than just letting things go. The need you have to never be wrong is more extreme than I've ever seen in a person.

FlaGator

02-14-2011, 10:33 PM

<snip>
I understand your passion - I once sat in similar seat. I used to spend a great deal of time on Christian forums even to the point of being a member of staff there once upon a time. Before that I participated in several other Christian forums and chat rooms practicing Apologetics and arguing doctrine. I have over a decades experience arguing with ministers, priests, theologians, seminary students, etc - all of them shocked when they learned my age . . . . it was fun but I find it more profitable to live it than to argue it now a days . . . .

By the way, I had a discussion with a couple people in pms between the time I posted my reply to you and your response as to how you would accept a olive branch and a sincere compliment. You should be happy to know that it met all expectations.

PoliCon

02-14-2011, 11:09 PM

Again, things would not have go so far if you had not decided to claim your own personal belief as a 'Christian Notion'. I believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty and that two witnesses are required to prove guilt - You disagree. That's fine. I never said you had to agree dude. Can you see that?

This personal understanding you speak of, is that your own personal gospel? Question, does God want you to adapt scripture to fit your life or do you think he want's you to adapt your life to scripture? Come on dude. You're taking what was said to an extreme again. :( You know - or should know - that that is not what I'm saying.

That whole personal interpretation thing sound a lot like the liberal teaching that is coming from many churches now. You realize that your view could be wrong don't you. Many homosexuals have reinterpreted scripture to fit there life style. Are you guilty of the same thing? And I have said time and again - on religious issues - I do have some very liberal tendencies. I do not believe for a second that gay people cannot go to heaven. At the same time I have been quite clear in my belief that homosexuality is wrong.

One another note, did it occur to you to accept my olive branch with a simple "it's cool' or something similar? And how would saying - it's cool build understanding? :confused: Don't get me wrong - I understand that you're making an effort here - but understand that I'm doing the same. The difference is - by your own confession - that you're looking for 'peace' and my focus is understanding which will bring peace.

I suspect that you were to focused on answering things than just letting things go. The need you have to never be wrong is more extreme than I've ever seen in a person. I wish I knew myself as well as you do. :confused:

PoliCon

02-14-2011, 11:10 PM

By the way, I had a discussion with a couple people in pms between the time I posted my reply to you and your response as to how you would accept a olive branch and a sincere compliment. You should be happy to know that it met all expectations. I fail to see the constructive benefit of saying something like this. :confused:

FlaGator

02-15-2011, 08:07 AM

I fail to see the constructive benefit of saying something like this. :confused:
I figured it would be useful to know that others expect so little from you. Perhaps the knowledge would give you cause to to think about things. Perhaps it is useless knowledge to you. Do with it what you will.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that you are a good person because I've seen you exhibit a virtuous empathy for certain types of people and people in certain situations. I believe you love God and I believe that you are true to your convictions. I also believe that you have a habit of being very stuck on your view when ever someone challenges it. You don't like to be wrong (who does) and you have great issues with accepting even the possibility that you view on something is not necessarily the correct one or that you view may not be the ideal one for a give discussion.

At any rate, I don't suppose I'm telling you anything that you aren't aware of. Perhaps you will consider this of no value and that is your right. Maybe, you can think about some of this and consider this things I have said. As I stated this is just my opinion and perhaps I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time and I suspect it won't be the last :D

Peace MBIC

Madisonian

02-15-2011, 08:58 AM

And will the lesbian recuse herself from the case as well since she was part of the justice department pushing for it?

Right unlike the lesbians work in the justice department on this topic which is a conflict of interests and she will NOT recuse herself for anything.

And your 2 witnesses for this accusation are?

PoliCon

02-15-2011, 09:17 AM

I figured it would be useful to know that others expect so little from you. Perhaps the knowledge would give you cause to to think about things. Perhaps it is useless knowledge to you. Do with it what you will.So . . . what you're saying here is that you and unnamed persons here have been gossiping about me behind my back and that's supposed to give me pause? Well to be honest - it does but not in the way you've clearly expected. I would think that if someone here - especially if they are Christian - would follow scripture and come to me if they have an issue with me.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that you are a good person because I've seen you exhibit a virtuous empathy for certain types of people and people in certain situations. I believe you love God and I believe that you are true to your convictions. I also believe that you have a habit of being very stuck on your view when ever someone challenges it. You don't like to be wrong (who does) and you have great issues with accepting even the possibility that you view on something is not necessarily the correct one or that you view may not be the ideal one for a give discussion.well thank you for your magnanimity.

At any rate, I don't suppose I'm telling you anything that you aren't aware of. Perhaps you will consider this of no value and that is your right. Maybe, you can think about some of this and consider this things I have said. As I stated this is just my opinion and perhaps I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time and I suspect it won't be the last :D

Peace MBICI always strive to be straight forward and honest about what I believe and to actually live what I believe. I do not always get it right - but I do at least try - and isn't that really what God wants from us? That we try?

Madisonian

02-15-2011, 02:43 PM

You drone on for pages about your "Christian values" and defending a possible sexual assaulter of women because he plays football for "your team" yet when asked how you come to the conclusion that Kagan is a lesbian (as you have exclaimed twice in the same thread) when she has not said that she is and there is no proof, you are curiously silent.

Calling Kagan a lesbian without proof would be considered "bearing false witness" to most people.
Isn't there something in your Bible and self professed Christianity, like the 8th or 9th commandment, that considers doing that a grave sin?

PoliCon

02-15-2011, 03:01 PM

You drone on for pages about your "Christian values" Do you believe that I'm trying to impress? Or that I am puffing myself up?

and defending a possible sexual assaulter of women because he plays football for "your team" Yes - he is a POSSIBLE sexual assaulter. If there were evidence, I'd be the first one to ask for his head. But with out it - I'll be dead honest here - I'm sick to death of people being assassinated based on allegations and even more sick of the way people throw around the term rape so cheaply. I know rape. I know it intimately. The real fucking deal. Not some woman who sobers up and regrets what she did the night before - but having someone forcibly hold you down as you fight and kick and violate you for the sake of power.

yet when asked how you come to the conclusion that Kagan is a lesbian (as you have exclaimed twice in the same thread) when she has not said that she is and there is no proof, you are curiously silent.

Calling Kagan a lesbian without proof would be considered "bearing false witness" to most people.
Isn't there something in your Bible and self professed Christianity, like the 8th or 9th commandment, that considers doing that a grave sin? If I was asked about Kagan - I missed it. I'll have to look again and reply.

Rockntractor

02-15-2011, 03:32 PM

Do you believe that I'm trying to impress? Or that I am puffing myself up?

If your opinion of yourself is true I think an ascension is in order and a book or two should be added to scripture.

PoliCon

02-15-2011, 09:19 PM

If your opinion of yourself is true I think an ascension is in order and a book or two should be added to scripture.

Joking aside - do you honestly believe I see myself that way?

Rockntractor

02-15-2011, 09:22 PM

Joking aside - do you honestly believe I see myself that way?

Okay joking aside, I think you get a little carried away without realizing it, know when to quit.
Your a good guy.

PoliCon

02-15-2011, 09:25 PM

Okay joking aside, I think you get a little carried away without realizing it, know when to quit.
Your a good guy.

I will grant you that no matter how hard we try - flagator and I rub each other the wrong way. Which is one of the reasons why I try to avoid these discussions with him. I already know at the onset that it's going to end badly. :(

fettpett

02-15-2011, 09:37 PM

I will grant you that no matter how hard we try - flagator and I rub each other the wrong way. Which is one of the reasons why I try to avoid these discussions with him. I already know at the onset that it's going to end badly. :(

you just need a good noogie every now and again....maybe a swirly too :D

Rockntractor

02-15-2011, 09:43 PM

you just need a good noogie every now and again....maybe a swirly too :D

Perhaps that's it, every Sunday evening he could stick his head in the toilet and flush it, sort of a self flushellation. Brilliant!:D

PoliCon

02-15-2011, 09:57 PM

Perhaps that's it, every Sunday evening he could stick his head in the toilet and flush it, sort of a self flushellation. Brilliant!:D

You want me to stick my head in your drinking bowl?? :eek:

fettpett

02-15-2011, 10:01 PM

You want me to stick my head in your drinking bowl?? :eek:

I'm sure he wont mind you sticking your head in his watering trough :D